RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ghaddafi (Khadafi) (Qadafi) Gone… Now What?

There’s an old question that asks something like, “What happens after you throw the rascals out?”

And that is a question that needs to be answered all over the Middle East as good leaders like Mubarak and brutal dictators like Ghaddafi fall to protests and rebel uprisings.

What is in store for these nations? Will freedom burst out all over like Spring flowers? Or is this the beginning of a new era of darkness under radical Islam?

For the answer, just look at who is behind these so-called revolutions – NATO bombers and the policies of the United States in the person of pro-Muslim Barack Obama and a leftist network going back to president Jimmy Carter who tossed Iran to the fundamentalist lions in 1979 by abandoning a pro-American leader in the Shah.

And these American liberals have fomented this policy because they themselves are anti-American and anti-Israel and they are allying themselves with radical Islam against Israel and the United States. Don’t be fooled into thinking otherwise. Forget the patriotic spin.

The deposing of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt was part of a pattern. He was a good leader who kept Egypt stable for decades (like the Shah did for Iran) and in the peaceful, pro-Western camp.

But now the possibility of radical Islamists taking over Egypt are quite good. Just wait. It hasn’t happened yet. The extremists have been waiting decades for this moment. So they can wait a little longer until the time is ripe. They are waiting for a “triggering event” to set their plan in motion. That event already is planned out. It will be something like a coordinated attack on the parliament or the assassination of a key military figure.

And while Ghaddafi certainly was a brutal dictator, Africa and the Middle East are brutal parts of the world. The experiment with democracy in Iraq – in which the other shoe has not yet dropped but is hanging by a thread – shows that dictators are often needed in such places to keep order.

Ghaddafi kept Libya stable and gave its citizens the highest standard of living in Africa under his own brand of Islamic socialism. Now what?

There is going to be a civil war and Libya will be further destroyed like Iraq has been. And then radical Muslims will emerge victorious because they are the most vicious force among the “rebels” with the biggest arms network in the region, emanating from… Iran.

Now look at the ending for Ghaddafi where he was captured alive and then executed. Where are the American civil libertarians to decry the fact that he was killed without trial? Where is the liberal demand for the ‘ban on assassinating foreign leaders’ that certainly seemed like it must have been in place at the time that Obama was seen greeting Ghaddafi in 2009 at an international conference?

No these humanitarian protocols fade when liberals like Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are behind the killing. If this were George Bush, there would be armageddon.

In fact a trial for Ghaddafi might have kept Libyans more focused and united. Now they have nothing to draw them away from the chaos that regularly ensues when a strong leader in an inherently unstable part of the world is deposed, along with his military structure.

Yes, Ghaddafi was a very evil person. There was the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing of 1988 that killed 259 people, mostly Americans; the West Berlin nightclub bombing of 1986; the assassination of Libyan dissidents in various countries around the world; the internal repression; the involvement in various wars in Africa; his friendship with tyrants like Mugabe in Zimbabwe; the expulsion of Jews from Libya; the hatred of Israel. And on and on.

And it is good that he is gone. Yet Ghaddafi had toned down his rhetoric and made several moves toward international accommodation in recent years, even renouncing his nuclear weapons program after the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He has not been vitriolically anti-Israel as Iran and Syria have been in the last decade.

Will America now support uprisings in Syria and particularly in Iran?

In Syria, yes. In Iran, no. Because Iran is at the core of the Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalism. And Obama is at heart a Muslim who supports the creation of a region-wide Islamic caliphate that is going to act as a bulwark toward the West.

Looking at Iraq, we now have a nation in ruins. Saddam Hussein kept it in one piece with brutal tactics. But the outcome today is even more brutal. Much has been destroyed and more than 800,000 Christians have fled the country after many attacks on churches by extremist Muslims. Hussein had protected the Christians.

Ditto in Egypt where anti-Christian sentiments are bubbling up directed at the 8 million Copts who have been in Egypt much longer than the Muslims. Mubarak had protected the Copts and now he is gone.

So don’t see these uprisings as simply yearnings for freedom. They are politically charged movements against Christianity, the United States and Israel. And they are here too within our borders. These crazy Wall Street protesters are nothing but atheistic, communistic, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-American. And these seemingly disparate groups have one common goal – to upend America and the Christian, capitalist West.

You might think that these radical Muslims would want to focus on stability in their own nations. Yet they are attacking the West and Israel. Why?

Because they know that they have no possibility in hell of improving the lives of their people. And so they use a tactic of tyrants like communists – direct their anger at successful societies and try to bring them down in order to get the miserable people in their nations cheering and forgetting their own crises and obeying extremist leaders instead.

This is going to be the outcome of the so-called Arab Spring. Already Egypt is suffering as tourists who once flocked there are now avoiding a nation in turmoil. And the turmoil is spreading. And someday it will end when the region finally is in the hands of the most brutal tyrants of all, as Iran already is today.

(Note: Regarding the myriad spellings of the Libyan dictator’s name, here is an excerpt from wikipedia.org:

Because of the lack of standardization of transliterating written and regionally pronounced Arabic, Gaddafi’s name has been romanized in many different ways

“Muammar Gaddafi” is the spelling used by TIME, Newsweek, Reuters, BBC News, the majority of the British press and by the English service of Al-Jazeera. The Associated Press, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS and the majority of the Canadian press use “Moammar Gadhafi”. The Library of Congress uses “Qaddafi, Muammar” as the primary name. The Edinburgh Middle East Report uses “Mu’ammar Qaddafi” and the US Department of State uses “Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi”, although the White House chooses to use “Muammar el-Qaddafi”. The Xinhua News Agency uses “Muammar Khaddafi” in its English reports.The New York Times uses “Muammar el-Qaddafi”. The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times … and Agence France-Presse use “Moammar Kadafi”.

An article published in the London Evening Standard in 2004 lists a total of 37 spellings of his name, while a 1986 column by The Straight Dope quotes a list of 32 spellings known from the Library of Congress. ABC identified 112 possible spellings.)